Her Inevitableness - The Early Lines

St. Bill's spouse generates analysis (as opposed to enthusiasm):

Andrew Sullivan: It's hard to hate entirely reasonable Hillary

Among my many guilty pleasures — bad reality television, solitary nose excavation, the Fox News Channel — hating Hillary Clinton was once near the top of the list. The senator from New York somehow managed to arouse every one of my love-to-hate zones.

... Even her allies loathe her...

.... Why am I having a hard time keeping the wave afloat? The answer is relatively simple. Clinton has been an almost painfully reasonable, centrist, sensible senator. I’d like to hate her but she’s foiling me every time.

Here she is explaining her foreign policy philosophy to The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg: “We can critique the idealists, who have an almost faith-based idealism without adequate understanding or evidence-based decision making, and we can critique the realists for rejecting the importance of aspiration and values in foreign policy. You know, I find myself, as I often do, in the somewhat lonely middle.”

There are two things to say about that. The first is that she shouldn’t use “critique” as a verb. The second is that it’s very hard to disagree with her. The question in American foreign policy should never be whether one is a realist or an idealist. It should always be which blend of each is appropriate in the face of any specific challenge. I have no doubt, for example, that the first Bush administration in 1988-92 was too realist; and that the second one, which we are currently enduring, is too idealist. But who do we trust to get the balance right in the future? Hillary is essentially saying that we should trust her. She is giving us a clear signal of what a second Clinton administration would be like: all the centrism and responsibility of her husband’s eight years but without any of the charm.

Is that what Americans want? It seems that what they want is a form of escapism (in the form of Edwards), charisma (in the shape of Barack Obama), or integrity (in the guise of John McCain). But when the decision nears and the stakes, especially abroad, begin to seep in, might Hillary be right? Might they actually be yearning for dullness, competence and responsibility? Americans historically elect presidents who are an antidote to the flaws of the previous one. Nixon begat Carter who begat Reagan. When you think of George W Bush, the word “reckless” springs to mind. And what is the antidote to reckless? “I am cursed with the responsibility gene,” said a candidate last week. She may be revealing extremely good political instincts. Or she may, of course, be calculating again.

Kevin Drum:

She has nowhere to go but up. Seriously. Every nasty thing that can possibly be said about her has already been said. Her negatives may be high, but that's mostly among Republicans who won't influence her primary chances and wouldn't vote for a Democrat in the general election anyway. Rush Limbaugh will spew his usual swill to the dittoheads, but for the most part all the old attacks will seem, well, old. (And this is one area where the iron laws of the press corps will work in her favor. Old scandals are almost never deemed worthy of revival in a presidential campaign. You have to dig up fresh dirt to get their attention.)

Bull Moose, at Political Insider:

Yes, the danger is that Hillary comes across as cold and Thatcher-like. But that's a much smaller risk than looking fake by going to great pains to show her softer side, and in the process reinforcing the narrative that she's a cipher who has no core convictions.

Will the campaign go this route, or will they be so afraid of fueling the hateful meme that she's a scorned robo-woman -- and providing more fodder for those who spit venom at stuff like the "mean tossed salad" comment -- that they'll have her end almost every statement with, "P.S., I'm an actual woman"?

Gallop Nationwide Pole 1/17

Clinton 29
Obama 18
Edwards 13

WaPo Nationwide Today

Clinton 41
Obama 17
Edwards 11

Zogby New Hampshire 1/18

Obama 23
Clinton 19
Edwards 19

Zogby Iowa

Edwards 27
Obama 17
Vilsack 16
Clinton 16

In a 2008 presidential poll, Newsweek finds a generic Democratic presidential candidate "has a 21-point lead over an unnamed GOP challenger. The race becomes much closer, however, when voters are asked to choose among actual names." Among named hypothetical matchups only John Edwards wins all pairings:

Edwards 48%, McCain 43%
Clinton 48%, McCain 47%
Obama 46%, McCain 44%
Edwards 48%, Giuliani 45%
Giuliani 48%, Clinton 47%
Giuliani 47%, Obama 45%